Case 2216735/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Odibo-WIlson v Bavana Partners — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216735/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Odibo-WIlson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a claim for unfair dismissal brought by Miss J Odibo-WIlson against Bavana Partners. By letters dated 8 January 2024 and 8 January 2025, the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out, because it appeared to be an unfair dismissal claim only and the claimant had not been employed for the two-year qualifying period required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant replied to the first letter saying she understood she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim unless she had two years' service, but asked that the claim not be struck out and provided details of the dismissal. She did not clearly identify any basis on which section 108 did not apply. A further letter asked her to clarify whether she was contending that the claim was one of automatic unfair dismissal to which the two-year requirement would not apply. There was no response.
As the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing, the tribunal struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim because it was a claim for unfair dismissal only and the claimant had not been employed for two years or more under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was asked to identify any automatic unfair dismissal basis but did not respond. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.